References

Adam A, Kreps D (2009) ‘Disability and Discourses of Web Accessibility’, Information, Communication and Society, Vol. 12 Issue 7, p 1041 – 1058.

Borges, J (2009) ‘Political Discussion and News use in the Contemporary Public Sphere: The "Accessibility" and "Traversability" of the Internet’, International Communication Association, Vol 61 No. 8, 551.

Bucy, E (2004) ‘Second Generation Net News: Interactivity and Information Accessibility in the Online Environment’, The International Journal on Media Management, Vol. 16 Issue 8, p 155 – 169.

Christensen E, Ankwe U, Kessler E (2001) ‘Receptivity to Distance Learning: The Effect of Technology, Reputation, Constraints, and Learning Preferences’, Journal of Research on Computing in Education

Conell, B & Sanford J (1999) ‘Research implications of universal design’ In: Steinfield, E & Danford J (eds) Enabling Environments: Measuring the Impact of Environments on Disability and Rehabilitation. NY Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishing, New York.

Craddock, G. (2003) ‘Assistive Technology: Shaping the Future’ Association for the Advancement of Assistive Technology in Europe, London. 

Kling R (2007) ‘What is Social Informatics and why does it matter?’ The Information Society, Vol. 23 Issue 4, pp 205 – 220. 

Iwarsson S, Stahl A (2003) ‘Accessibility, usability and universal design – positioning and definition of concepts describing person-environment relationships’, Disability and Rehabilition, Vol. 25 No. 2, 57 – 66.

Kolin, K (2011) ‘Social Informatics Today and Tomorrow: Status, Problems and Prospects of Development of Complex Lines in the Field of Science and Education’, Open Access Journal for a Global Sustainable Information Society, Vol. 9 Issue 2, p460-465.

Lewthwaite, S. (2011) Critical approaches to accessibility for technology-enhanced learning. Learning, Media & Technology, Vol. 36 Issue 1, p85-89.

Malmgren, C (2010) ‘Summary of The 21st Century Communications & Video Accessibility Act’ CommLaw Conspectus, Vol. 19 Issue 1, p289-290.

Nair, R (2002) Accessing Information Through The Internet, Ess Ess, Malaysia.

Raman T, Lee A (2005) ‘Aspects of Rich Accessibility User Experiences’, International Journal of Speech Terminology, Vol. 8, p 117 – 126. 

Robare, J (2008) ‘Television for All: Increasing Television Accessibility for the Visually. Impaired Through the FCC's Ability to Regulate Video Description Technology’, Federal Communications Journal, Vol. 63 Issue 2, p 166.

Robbin, Alice (2011) ‘Embracing Technology and the Challenges of Complexity’, Open Access Journal for a Global Sustainable Information Society, Vol. 9 Issue 1, p11-27.

Russell, C (2003) ‘Access to technology for the disabled: the forgotten legacy of innovation’ Information & Communications Technology Law, Manchester Metropolitan University, UK.

Sawyer, S. & Tyworth, M. (2006) ‘Social Informatics: Principles, Theory, and Practice’ In: Berleur J, Markku I, Impagliazzo J (2006) Social Informatics: An Information Society For All? Cambridge University Press, London.

Xu, A (2001) ‘Accessing Information on the Internet Feasibility Study of USMARC Format and AACR2’ OCLC Internet Cataloging Project Colloquium, MIT Press.

Read More

My Focus

For this project, I will focus on two dimensions of accessibility in relation to emerging technologies (Iwarsson and Stahl):
 

1. Accessibility to the physical environment – for example, prosthetic limbs, assistive robots like self-driving cars, voice synthesis, etc.
   
2. Accessibility to information – for example, the emergence of the Internet and the use of search-engines like Google

 

Read More

Accessibility and Social Informatics

Technological accessibility and universal design has become increasingly relevant in our digital society. Emerging technologies like the Internet have the potential to revolutionise society, transcend national boundaries and facilitate global communication (Russell, 2003). Technological developments have fuelled globalisation through the process recognised as time-space compression (Nair, 2002), where original barriers to communication such as nation states or cultures, can be lifted.

Despite this unparalleled communications revolution, the law has often struggled to encompass its ever-broadening boundaries and technological advancements. While there is a vast amount of interest in relation to regulation and the harnessing of any commercial interests, little attention has been paid to widening access. A so-called ‘digital divide’ has been recognised; the phenomenon of certain groups being left behind as new technology progresses (Russell, 2003).

The term ‘digital divide’ describes the socially divisive nature of unequal access to technology. A move towards an envisaged ‘Information Society’ (Russell 2003) can only be achieved if all citizens are given the opportunity to participate and reap the benefits of technological developments equally (Kokin, 2011). 

It has been recognised that certain parts of society - for example, ethnic minorities, women, physically handicapped people - are failing to harness the possibilities presented by access to technology (Craddock, 2003). The use of specific tailored software and hardware, and the community building nature of the Internet can, if desired and made accessible, greatly enrich the life of such users.

The social and cultural benefits of technology could transform the experience and status of a group of society which otherwise has the potential to be marginalised (Russell, 2003). With the correct technology, an individual can be connected to, not only vast swathes of information, be it erroneous or otherwise, but also a massive international network of enabled ‘netizens’, ready to communicate, interact and share ideas (Raman & Lee, 2005). In support of this proposition, Microsoft has even stated that: ‘Accessibility enables people of all abilities to realise their full potential. [Technology] should be accessible to people around the world – of all ages and abilities.’ (Microsoft Corporation, 2009)

Read More